[ad_1]
On Tuesday morning, Norway was convicted of human rights violations at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in a fiery child welfare case.
The complainant in the case is a Norwegian mother in her 40s from Askøy municipality.
She lost care of her daughter shortly after giving birth in 2011, and the girl was later adopted by her adoptive parents.
In the unanimous verdict, delivered by seven court judges, the EMD is not kind in its criticism of the process that led to the adoption.
– Crying with joy
– My client cried with joy when she heard the result. She feels like they’ve finally heard her, says the mother’s attorney, Rikke Arnesen.
So far, ten child welfare judgments have been handed down against Norway in Strasbourg. Norway has been convicted in eight of them.
The new ruling really only sheds light on a new topic.
The EMD states that biological parents have the right to parole, which itself is protected by the human rights convention.
– The court says that parents should be able to exercise their rights and judge decisions about, for example, taking over care or determining visitation at the county board or court, without being deprived of parental responsibility and adoption . This “fight” should not be understood as that parents do not see the needs of their children and are used as an argument to legitimize stricter coercive measures, explains Arnesen.
Criticized
In addition to this, things are known that the EMD emphasizes when the court determines that Norway, also in this case of forced adoption, has violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which deals with the right to family life.
In this judgment, as in previous child welfare judgments against Norway, Norway is criticized for very little contact from the beginning of the process, for not sufficiently accepting that a takeover is temporary and that the state has a positive duty to work for family reunification.
Precisely because much has already been said about the problematic Norwegian child welfare practice through judgments that have already been handed down in Strasbourg, the court has noted that many of the remaining 30 or so Norwegian child welfare cases will be resolved in a simplified procedure, in a committee with only three judges.
– So why has the EMD created a room with seven judges in this case, which thematically contains very little news?
– Actually, there are three reasons for that, says EMD judge Arnfinn Bårdsen and continues:
NORWEGIAN JUDGE: Norwegian Arnfinn Bårdsen is on leave from the Supreme Court of Norway to serve as a judge at the Strasbourg Human Rights Court. Photo: EMD
see more
– First, the Supreme Court of Norway has spent considerable resources on handling child welfare cases in the Grand Chamber following various rulings on child welfare in the EMD. It is natural for us to respond to that, and then not at the committee level. We take the opportunity to consolidate our practice in light of the Great House treatment in Norway, says Bårdsen.
More interesting
Second, the Norwegian judge in Strasbourg points out that Tuesday’s verdict against Norway is the first to be considered by the new section Norway now belongs to in the EMD – section 5.
– In this way, the section judges know and become familiar with this complex of cases, and in this way this ruling will form a basis for further work in the section on Norwegian child welfare cases, explains Bårdsen.
The third reason the EMD chose to sit with a seven-judge chamber is perhaps the most interesting.
The judges have a clear message that they want to convey to the Norwegian authorities.
This is related to Norway’s appeal of the two child welfare cases Norway was sentenced on March 10 this year before the Grand Chamber of the EMD, the case of forced adoption of Terje and Merlita of Vestnes in Møre og Romsdal and the case taking custody of a Swedish citizen whose children are in care in Norway.
Go down the gorge in Strasbourg
In its appeal, the State accused the EMD of having abandoned its own principles in the two sentences.
Give a clear answer
A committee in Strasbourg rejected Norway’s request for a Grand Chamber treatment this fall, and the EMD has now seen an opportunity to give Norway a clear answer to this, namely, what the court believes, and will clarify to Norway, that the two child welfare rulings against Norway in March also built on what the court considers established jurisprudence.
– In my opinion, there was nothing surprising in these two convictions against Norway in March. When we refer to sections of these judgments in the new judgment, it is to confirm that the EMD sees this as established practice, says Arnfinn Bårdsen.
The Ministry of Children’s and Family Affairs informs Dagbladet that it has no comment on the matter.
